Request to upgrade the servers ๐
I heard before that apex servers have 20 tick rate which is means if u even have 400FPS u will see your self getting killed through doors and covers, and making your abilities useless sometimes When...
Forum Discussion
@DoYaSeeMe people are asking for server tickrate not client side - the server tick rate is at 20HZ. That the client side batches updates towards server means that if someone has packet drop - they will be clipping (basically teleporting every update) that is not great "netcode" - basically just fancy words that its decent - but it could be improved. Also you are wrong about cloud solutions, sizing that part is the easy thing - changing the code for the network is the hard part. Many companys can afford a top end cloud (Iยดm speaking from experience working in the IT industry, security - banking and telecom) the gaming industry is making a hell of a lot money during the past years, this is just a bad excuse...
To the OP, do like me - stop investing money into this game until they start prioritizing towards the consumer side.
Would changing the server tick rate magically resolve all our issues - no, the big and painful work is updating the netcode to support it/gain the benefits. And EA does not see that as a worthy investment, however they invest money into "cross platform" so yeah they wont be having any of my hard worked money anytime soon. What they dont realize is that once we get cross platform, its going to be aim assist vs aimbot - and most people will leave, since why bother constantly playing against an A.I aim. Most "predators" I run into on PC are playing on controller, gee I wonder why.
They need to acknowledge that aim assist on PC is broken and resolve it, they need to acknowledge that the netcode is not perfect in this game (you know people teleporting every second, you still get hit after taking cover behind a wall). Whenever they update the server rate or not, the netcode is far from being perfect. And whoever claims that has never played against someone that has packet drop - and how tilting it is when people teleport randomly. They need to acknowledge that EAC was probably not the best way to combat cheaters and put more pressure on EAC, combating cheaters should be done similarly, as such, in Valorant (for one, its anti cheat is 10 times more sophisticated than EAC, it also immediately bans - and not waits for people to climb to predator with aimbots and then ban them in waves - when the harm has already been made)..
Knowing big companies, they will read this and laugh that we - the peasants dare to tell them what they need to acknowledge (that's their mentality).
I do however applaud Respawn Entertainment for the work they have done, I just feel sorry for them - cant be easy when you have both hands tied. You guys made an awesome game.
@NitromethaneAP if the server gets multiple updates from clients before processing the next tick, it's able to process a better simulation and make more corrections, while also improving the experience a bit for those that are a bit laggy.
Teleporting won't be reduced by increasing the tickrate server side. On the contrary, the issues may happen more often because of the server having less time and data to process an update.
Also, you are wrong about me being wrong about the cloud ๐. Apex is able to scale a lot, but I wasn't talking about the scaling. I was referring to the level of the machines inside the data centres. Sure, Apex could use 3 times more servers to reduce the load on each machine, but that would mean playing with an even bigger lag for most of the players, especially during peak times. The current situation is proof: there are many concurrent players and Apex is often using the public cloud, putting players on higher lag servers when close ones are fully booked.
Teleporting won't be reduced by increasing the tickrate server side. On the contrary, the issues may happen more often because of the server having less time and data to process an update.
Also, you are wrong about me being wrong about the cloud ๐. Apex is able to scale a lot, but I wasn't talking about the scaling. I was referring to the level of the machines inside the data centres. Sure, Apex could use 3 times more servers to reduce the load on each machine, but that would mean playing with an even bigger lag for most of the players, especially during peak times. The current situation is proof: there are many concurrent players and Apex is often using the public cloud, putting players on higher lag servers when close ones are fully booked.
@DoYaSeeMethat's not what happens in apex today, the teleporting during packet loss is updaded what it seems like every 1 second - how is that a better simulation (there are better netcoded games that handle this in many other ways).
Teleporting could be reduced in incretels if the server ticket was higher and it had a better netcode.
Increasing say cores in the nodes within the cloud is scaling the hardware. Scaling does not mean simply adding additional virtual clouds - or adding more nodes, it can mean upping the cores/memory in each node. What is called Vertical scaling, I think you are thinking of Horizontal scaling. Vertical scaling in a cloud is quite easy, since servers are already virtual. You basically change one parameter during boot up / deployment server that tells the virtual server how much "Juice" it should use.
Meaning that having a "top of the line cloud" is something complex, is not true (I know you never claimed it was) - and many companies can afford the very decent setups / not everyone can afford googles setup - but that is an entire different monster. But claiming that an company like EA cant afford a cloud to support Apexยดs demands if it went 60hz on its servers is simply not true - and thats not the issue for them at all, thats within the netcode revamp that it would require. I havent seen the code base /netcode, but my guestimate is that the work either to be 300-500++h (thats why EA wont ever finance it). Why I stated that the cloud itself probably aint the problem here, even if cores/memory was an issue - it can be mounted/added (and for a company the size of EA, that should not be an issue at all).
You can find all the excuses in the world, the servers are terrible.Way older games have way better servers.
There is million problem with their servers, so they need to fix this.
@NitromethaneAPIt's not like 1-2 packets get lost when congestion happens. There are many seconds of timeout and a lot of packets delayed or lost. If you get a lot of teleporting in your games, that means there's a serious problem on the network, either your connection to the match server is going through many unstable hops or you're on a wireless connection.
Most of you people who blame the netcode don't usually realize that a lot of games actually have similar, almost identic netcode. The difference is in the mechanics used in the game. The issues caused by network problems are usually worse game when there are more complex physics, faster movement, more types of characters, items and interactions, more players, larger map, bullet drop and travel etc.. That's why comparing Apex with most of the other shooters is redundant.@DoYaSeeMe I am not talking about my connection, but people who have packet loss - and they all showcase the same in-game behaviour (that they teleport roughly every 1 second, the interval of course is worst or better in some cases, but the underlying problem here is teleportation)
Netcode in games differ a lot, the framework is more or same (this differ from game engine). The more complexity within a game, the more complexity within the net coding part. Iยดve looked at many games that have quite different ways to solve problems (in detail). I can tell you that no they are not identical. What ever genuis way you com up with to combat it, the bottleneck will always be on the server side being 20Hz (other than the limitations in the game engine itself). And as you write your self, a game like Apex running on 20Hz server side - would be a bad decision, due to its nature of being fast pasted.
- @DoYaSeeMe Laggy garbage connections should never be catered to with netcode. Poeple with low ping shouldn't be penalized because they want every person with triple digit pings to "have a good experience".
@GRiPSViGiL Funny you say that...I legit said this nearly word for word last night to my duo after being shot around corners constantly over the course of 3 games.
I kept getting knocked and he was "like how the F did they hit you?"
Simples, they play on connection equivalent to dial up...therefore they win. XD
- @GRiPSViGiL They should, because even we can sometimes end up on servers with high ping, in the cloud. The vast majority doesn't want to wait 15-30 minutes on queues just to play a 5-10 minute match on 20-40 ms servers.
- @DoYaSeeMe In BR games that is a crappy reality I suppose. If, as a player, I can't control my playing conditions by choosing a server or region that I get a good ping and can have a good consistent gaming experience I will eventually quit the game, which happened with Apex. I recently moved and didn't set up my PC yet but a buddy is wanting me to run some Apex to see if the location move solved anything by giving me better routing but that would be a moot point even with 15 ping to my regions servers. Especially when matched and sent to a different region with much higher ping tainting my gaming experience that I expect.
Most online games allow you to see your expected ping before joining the game. Battle royals are flawed enormously in this way if they can just send you to a bad experience and think that is acceptable. I can't believe I just now made this realization. hmmm.....there is no sense for me to play BRs then. It makes perfect sense as to why I have so much better gaming experiences in a game like BF.
Yeah screw BRs....mostly luck based anyway with loot and how the positioning and squad interactions go.
